Use Intention and User Expectations of Human-Supported and Self-Help eHealth Interventions: Internet-Based Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-help eHealth interventions provide automated support to change health behaviors without any further human assistance. The main advantage of self-help eHealth interventions is that they have the potential to lower the workload of health care professionals. However, one disadvantage is that they generally have a lower uptake. Possibly, the absence of a relationship with a health care professional (referred to as the working alliance) could lead to negative expectations that hinder the uptake of self-help interventions. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) identifies which expectations predict use intention. As there has been no previous research exploring how expectations affect the adoption of both self-help and human-supported eHealth interventions, this study is the first to investigate the impact of expectations on the uptake of both kinds of eHealth interventions. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the intention to use a self-help eHealth intervention compared to a human-supported eHealth intervention and the expectations that moderate this relationship. METHODS: A total of 146 participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 conditions (human-supported or self-help eHealth interventions). Participants evaluated screenshots of a human-supported or self-help app-based stress intervention. We measured intention to use the intervention-expected working alliance and the UTAUT constructs: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence. RESULTS: Use intention did not differ significantly between the 2 conditions (t142=-1.133; P=.26). Performance expectancy (F1,140=69.269; P<.001), effort expectancy (F1,140=3.961; P=.049), social influence (F1,140=90.025; P<.001), and expected working alliance (F1,140=26.435; P<.001) were positively related to use intention regardless of condition. The interaction analysis showed that performance expectancy (F1,140=4.363; P=.04) and effort expectancy (F1,140=4.102; P=.045) more strongly influenced use intention in the self-help condition compared to the human-supported condition. CONCLUSIONS: As we found no difference in use intention, our results suggest that we could expect an equal uptake of self-help eHealth interventions and human-supported ones. However, attention should be paid to people who have doubts about the intervention's helpfulness or ease of use. For those people, providing additional human support would be beneficial to ensure uptake. Screening user expectations could help health care professionals optimize self-help eHealth intervention uptake in practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registries osf.io/n47cz; https://osf.io/n47cz.

Human cues in eHealth to promote lifestyle change: An experimental field study to examine adherence to self-help interventions.

eHealth lifestyle interventions without human support (self-help interventions) are generally less effective, as they suffer from lower adherence levels. To solve this, we investigated whether (1) using a text-based conversational agent (TCA) and applying human cues contribute to a working alliance with the TCA, and whether (2) adding human cues and establishing a positive working alliance increase intervention adherence. Participants (N = 121) followed a TCA-supported app-based physical activity intervention. We manipulated two types of human cues: visual (ie, message appearance) and relational (ie, message content). We employed a 2 (visual cues: yes, no) x 2 (relational cues: yes, no) between-subjects design, resulting in four experimental groups: (1) visual and relational cues, (2) visual cues only, (3) relational cues only, or (4) no human cues. We measured the working alliance with the Working Alliance Inventory Short Revised form and intervention adherence as the number of days participants responded to the TCA's messages. Contrary to expectations, the working alliance was unaffected by using human cues. Working alliance was positively related to adherence (t(78) = 3.606, p = .001). Furthermore, groups who received visual cues showed lower adherence levels compared to those who received relational cues only or no cues (U = 1140.5, z = -3.520, p < .001). We replicated the finding that establishing a working alliance contributes to intervention adherence, independently of the use of human cues in a TCA. However, we were unable to show that adding human cues impacted the working alliance and increased adherence. The results indicate that adding visual cues to a TCA may even negatively affect adherence, possibly because it may create confusion concerning the true nature of the coach, which may prompt unrealistic expectations.

Less stick more carrot? Increasing the uptake of deposit contract financial incentives for physical activity: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Financial incentives are a promising tool to help people increase their physical activity, but they are expensive to provide. Deposit contracts are a type of financial incentive in which participants pledge their own money. However, low uptake is a crucial obstacle to the large-scale implementation of deposit contracts. Therefore, we investigated whether (1) matching the deposit 1:1 (doubling what is deposited) and (2) allowing for customizable deposit amounts increased the uptake and short term effectiveness of a deposit contract for physical activity. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, 137 healthy students (age M = 21.6 years) downloaded a smartphone app that provided them with a tailored step goal and then randomized them to one of four experimental conditions. The deposit contract required either a €10 fixed deposit or a customizable deposit with any amount between €1 and €20 upfront. Furthermore, the deposit was either not matched or 1:1 matched (doubled) with a reward provided by the experiment. During 20 intervention days, daily feedback on goal progress and incentive earnings was provided by the app. We investigated effects on the uptake (measured as agreeing to participate and paying the deposit) and effectiveness of behavioral adoption (measured as participant days goal achieved). FINDINGS: Overall, the uptake of deposit contracts was 83.2%, and participants (n = 113) achieved 14.9 out of 20 daily step goals. A binary logistic regression showed that uptake odds were 4.08 times higher when a deposit was matched (p = .010) compared to when it was not matched. Furthermore, uptake odds were 3.53 times higher when a deposit was customizable (p = .022) compared to when it was fixed. Two-way ANCOVA showed that matching (p = .752) and customization (p = .143) did not impact intervention effectiveness. However, we did find a marginally significant interaction effect of deposit matching X deposit customization (p = .063, ηp2 = 0.032). Customization decreased effectiveness when deposits were not matched (p = .033, ηp2 = 0.089), but had no effect when deposits were matched (p = .776, ηp2 = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We provide the first experimental evidence that both matching and customization increase the uptake of a deposit contract for physical activity. We recommend considering both matching and customization to overcome lack of uptake, with a preference for customization since matching a deposit imposes significant additional costs. However, since we found indications that customizable deposits might reduce effectiveness (when the deposits are not matched), we urge for more research on the effectiveness of customizable deposit contracts. Finally, future research should investigate which participant characteristics are predictive of deposit contract uptake and effectiveness. PRE-REGISTRATION: OSF Registries, https://osf.io/cgq48.